Skip to content

Trump Executive Order on Digital Assets Charts a Fresh Course for the Industry

January 27, 2025

On Jan. 23, President Trump issued an executive order entitled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.” The order signals a sea change in the federal government’s treatment of Bitcoin and other digital assets. It also repeals prior and possibly conflicting executive orders from the Biden administration.

Out of the gate, it is notable that the framework outlined is aimed at both the President’s cabinet as well as certain independent regulatory commissions within the executive branch. This approach could see a harmonization of regulatory guidance and get all parties “rowing in the same direction.”

The order begins by affirming the basic principle that Americans should be free to use open blockchain networks like Bitcoin. While this statement is not earth-shattering on its face, it acknowledges the administration’s policy of protecting individuals’ ability to mine and transact “without unlawful censorship, and to maintain self-custody of digital assets.” This contrasts with policy proposals of the recent past that could have threatened elements of digital asset use and self-custody.

Other critical aspects of the order include the promotion of “legitimate dollar-backed stablecoins,” which rely on blockchains to issue and use dollar equivalents outside the traditional financial system rails.

Notably, after years of reported challenges accessing the financial system, the order promises digital asset-focused companies “fair and open access to banking services for all law-abiding” participants. This is a nod to the winding down of “Operation Choke Point 2.0,” an alleged policy under the Biden administration of restricting access to the banking system for cryptocurrency industry participants.

The order also prohibits the creation of Central Bank Digital Currencies (“CBDCs”) within the United States. CBDCs have been the subject of much criticism within the industry due to the view that their widespread use could provide the issuing government with unprecedented and potentially intrusive insight into individual transactions. Additionally, CBDCs provide the technical ability to freeze individual citizens’ wallets and accounts without observing due process requirements.

Finally, the order establishes the “President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets,” made up of officials from a variety of federal agencies and departments representing a diverse array of interests.

Pursuant to specific timelines set forth in the order, the working group will identify “regulations, guidance documents, or other items that affect the digital asset sector,” and submit recommendations as to whether they should be rescinded or modified. The SEC seems to have been first to strike on this front, already rescinding Staff Accounting Bulletin 121, which had long been seen as an impediment to banks and other traditional financial institutions engaging with the digital asset industry. The working group is also charged with studying whether a strategic bitcoin ceserve or stockpile of digital assets should be pursued by the federal government. This provides an executive framework for perhaps eventually implementing the B.I.T.C.O.I.N Act introduced last year by Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, who now chairs the newly created Senate Banking Subcommittee on Digital Assets.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.

Subscribe for the latest

Subscribe

Related

Legal Updates

California Announces Record $12.75 Million CCPA Settlement with GM Over Connected Vehicle Data

On May 8, 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, together with several California district attorneys and the California Privacy Protection Agency, announced a $12.75 million settlement with General Motors and its connected vehicle service OnStar. The settlement resolves allegations that the companies violated the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the California Unfair Competition Law, and the California False Advertising Law by collecting and selling connected vehicle data without adequate consumer notice or consent.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Long Saga of Colorado AI Act Appears to Have Come to Close With Revised Law

Ever since its initial passage into law in 2024, the Colorado AI Act has been a lightning rod for controversy and calls for change. Over the ensuing two years, multiple attempts to amend the law were floated and proposed by consumer and industry groups. The implementation of the law itself was delayed several times to allow for such changes, with Governor Jared Polis calling a special session of the legislature last August to specifically address potential changes. All of those attempts appear to have culminated in Senate Bill 189 having passed both the Colorado House (57-6) and Senate (34-1) this week. The bill next heads to the desk of Governor Jared Polis where it is expected to be signed into law and to take effect as of January of 2027.

Explore more
Legal Updates

Using “Schedule A” Litigation to Combat Online Trademark Infringement

In today’s digital world, trademark infringement is a significant concern for businesses aiming to protect their brand identity. Accordingly, it is important for businesses to implement a multifaceted online enforcement strategy to protect their intellectual property rights. Among the various legal avenues available to combat counterfeit goods and unauthorized use of trademarks, “Schedule A” lawsuits, which are most often filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, have emerged as a powerful tool. As intellectual property attorneys at Clark Hill, we regularly help businesses secure and enforce their IP rights. Here, we will explore what Schedule A trademark infringement litigation entails, how it works, and why it’s essential for companies to understand this avenue for enforcing their legal rights.

Explore more